PER CURIAM.
The prosecutor appeals as of right from a circuit court order dismissing the charges
following the grant of defendant Mamoun Farraj?s motion to suppress the evidence. We reverse
and remand. We decide this appeal without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
I. Basic Facts And Procedural History
Farraj was charged with possession of anabolic steroids, second offense,1 felon in
possession of a firearm,2 and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.3 The
drugs and weapons were confiscated on March 14, 2001, during the execution of a search
warrant at Farraj?s home. Farraj filed a motion to suppress, claiming that the affidavit failed to
establish probable cause for the issuance of a warrant. The trial court agreed and suppressed the
evidence. The prosecutor was unable to go forward without the evidence and the charges were
dismissed.
II. Suppression Of Evidence
A. Standard Of Review
In reviewing a motion to suppress evidence, we review the trial court?s factual findings
for clear error and its ultimate decision de novo.4 When reviewing a magistrate?s conclusion that

-2-
probable cause to search existed, we do not review the matter de novo or apply an abuse of
discretion standard.5 Rather, paying deference to the magistrate?s determination that probable
cause did exist, we consider only whether the actual facts and circumstances presented to the
magistrate would permit a reasonably cautious person to conclude that there was a substantial
basis for the finding of probable cause.6
B. Probable Cause
Issuance of a search warrant must be based on probable cause.7 ?Probable cause to issue
a search warrant exists where there is a ?substantial basis? for inferring a ?fair probability? that
contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.?8 ?A magistrate can
consider only the information in the affidavit made before him in determining whether probable
cause exists to issue a search warrant.?9 The search warrant and underlying affidavit are to be
read in a commonsense and realistic manner.10
C. The Evidence
The information provided to the magistrate showed that Farraj had a prior conviction for
possession of a large amount of steroids. Two years later, used syringes found in his trash
contained the residue of anabolic steroids. Subsequently, more used syringes were found in his
trash; they contained a similar residue to that which had previously tested positive for
testosterone. A confidential informant reported seeing steroids used in the house and being
offered steroids by Farraj. We conclude that such information was sufficient to permit a
reasonable inference that Farraj continued to possess steroids and that they might be found in his
house. Although the affidavit failed to include information showing that the confidential
informant was credible or his information was reliable,11 that alone does not warrant
suppression.12 Moreover, in People v Goldston,13 the Court recognized a good-faith exception to
the exclusionary rule, holding that when the police rely in good faith on a judicially authorized

-3-
warrant and such reliance is objectively reasonable, suppression is not required despite a
subsequent finding that the warrant was not based on probable cause.14
Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the charges against Farraj. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra